ELC Contracts

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

ELC Contracts

BluesGM · Guru

ELC's should be cap hit, not actual salary....

the cap hit for toews is 2.8 million while kane's is 3.25 million.... too big of a gap imo....

capsgm · Senior Member

No way it should be cap hit, that would be way too drastic.

I think it's fine the way it is.

BluesGM · Guru

BluesGM wrote:

ELC's should be cap hit, not actual salary....

the cap hit for toews is 2.8 million while kane's is 3.25 million.... too big of a gap imo....

i admit my idea is too drastic... but i don't agree that teams get 3 years of a player for less than a mill.... maybe adjusting it roughly to what BRHL1 has it at, with a cap of 1.5 mill for this season, then rise it every season....

Hawks_G · Guru

There shouldn't be much of a discussion. The goal of the BRHL2 was to mirror the NHL and get as close to the NHL as possible.

We follow their cap every year. Ours moves. Our veteran players get their contracts re-signed as close as we can negotiate.

The only lapse in this is the ELC. If we have to manage our caps, what this does is give an unfair cap relief to teams with young players on the ELC.

BRHL Contract
Kessel $850K
Gagner $850K
Kane $850K
Toews $850K
Cogliano $850K

NHL Cap Hit
Kessel $2.2 Million
Gagner $1.625 Million
Kane $3.725 Million
Toews $2.800 Million
Cogliano $1.133 Million

Why should the teams that have these players get cap relief when we indicated that we are supposed to mirror the NHL? They are easy to monitor on nhlnumbers.com and since we usually won't sign the prospect until they have their NHL contract.

Stamkos should be a cap hit of $3.725 Million. Anything else is ridiculous.

Hawks_G · Guru

Let me add one more thing. What it does is also helps teams try to be competitive. It is easy to tank, get that top 5 pick, get Stamkos at $850K and then use the extra $3 million in space to add another player.

Too much incentive to be crappy. The incentive should be to be competitive, not rebuild.

Sabres_Luke · Guru

I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as it sound George. To your comment, "There's too much incentive to tanking for a top 5 pick". I don't think there is a lot of incentive to getting a top 5 pick?

If we look at this objectively:

-you lose $50

-you have players rated bad enough to get you a bottom 5 pick the previous year, meaning it will be really hard to take a team to a contender in a year's time without a huge talent pool to trade from. Less than 1 handful of teams have successfully pulled it off.

-The rich get richer. Why cripple a NYI or Pittsburgh team as it is? They are already set back against the elite teams like Chicago, Buffalo, SJ, PHilly, ATL ect...

-There's no guarantee the 3 million against the cap is even going to give you a great player. A la Daigle, Lawton, Williams....

-All first few year players have comparatively lower ratings anyways because A they have no history of play, B they are weaker and have less EXP, making their salary lower.

I'm still brainstorming the plus's:

But so far I have a strong argument as :Mirroring the NHL.

Rumpy · Senior Member

While it is kind of crazy that guys like Kane and Stamkos are making 850 K for 3 years it doesn't help teams at the bottom re-build at all. It actually hurts us when a team like Atlanta is going to have 2 top 5 picks and get that kind of young talent that cheap for that long. If Stamkos and Schenn are making 6 or 7 M on his roster he is going to have to decide to keep them or trade some of his other good players. I came into the league and felt I had to re-build to make something happen..... Minnesotta and Montreal are proving me wrong and Dipietro is really screwing me over in trying to get a top 5 pick. But even if I had the top 5 picks in this years draft my team would be terrible next year and I don't think it has anything to do with bad management. As Luke stated I am donating 50 $ for atleast the next two years because I realistically know I won't be making the playoffs and even after re-building I can only hope to compete with teams like Chicago Buffalo Atl who know there stuff and draft and trade well and will be right in the mix for as long as the league is running.

So my point is these young guys should be mirroring the NHL and be getting paid the big cap hit they deliver in real life. It should help the league become more balanced and make free agency less crazy.

capsgm · Senior Member

What's ridiculous is to change it a couple years after a League starts and it screws the guys who went young or had youngish teams.

I just think it's be insane to do ELC based on cap hits, I already whole heartedly disagree with players being signed as soon as they play 1 NHL game, that in itself is retarded and handcuffs GM's when it comes to contracts...

Paying an automatic 3 million to an 18 or 19 year old who has crappy ratings would be retarded

philly · Guru

said tim duncan

BluesGM · Guru

why not slightly increasing the salaries every year?

increasing rookie salaries from 875k to 1.5 million isn't that big of a gap... then the season after, increase it to 1.75 and every season after, increase by another 250k

PhoenixGM · Guru

There are clearely two very clear sides to this argument - both completely valid.

You know what that means - COMPROMISE!

maybe something like:
phasing it in - and bumping it up to a max of $2,000,000 - based on NHL performance and where they were drafted.

Steve

BryceBruins · BRHL2 Co-Commish

Some good dialogue, however 1 thing that needs to be taken out of the arguments is what benefits your team specifically, and using specific example sof teams holding picks. Atlanta has numerous early picks, really is irrelevant. The teams that are finishing in those slots had them, and dealt them for other assets. When arguing the merits of any system, please operate under the idealism that each team has their own first rounder.

Sens · Guru

If we want to be as realistic as possible, which is what we are going for as far as I know, then the salary of our players, should be there actual cap hit, IMO.

BluesGM · Guru

the only argument against using the cap hit from each team is that for UFAs we take the salary and ignore the signing bonus....

if we use the cap hit, maybe the signing bonus should be included in the salary.... it would lower salaries, but it would require teams being reset with the same amount of money to avoid rich teams getter better than poorer teams....